UNIX 9th edition ????

[Paul De Bra]

In article <316 at dcs.UUCP> wnp at dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes:
}In article <8872 at alice.UUCP> debra at alice.UUCP () writes:
}...
}Thus, nobody, so far, seems to have answered the original question: Where do
}System III and System V fit into the 7th, 8th, and 9th Edition succession;
}and whatever happened to System IV? Can someone answer this question?
}

They don't "fit into" that succession. I.e. with little exception System III
and System V have been developed separately, and there has been little flow
from these commercial systems back into research.

As for the other question, let's keep it simple in saying that System IV
was superseded before being released.

}I would also be interested to know whether the following assumption is 
}correct:
}
}Somehow, the powers that be (Marketing Dept.?) at AT&T have decided to make
}"UNIX System V" the name of their OS, rather than the name being "UNIX", and 
}"System V" being a version designator. Thus, even though going from V.2 to
}V.3 brought major changes (i.e. streams, RFS), the "System V" name was
}retained; even though V.4 will bring even more major changes (USG/BSD/XENIX
}merge, NFS, etc.), they still retain the "System V" name, and it has become
}synonymous with "AT&T UNIX". There are other examples, such as the SVID --
}I won't list them all.
}
}Can someone confirm or deny this interpretation of things?
}
Don't know, but it sounds reasonable. But what's in a name? Version numbers
have always been chosen in an arbitrary fashion, not only at AT&T but only
at Berkeley, Sun, etc...

Paul.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------
|debra at research.att.com   | uunet!research!debra     |
------------------------------------------------------